Jonathan Bate: the influences on Shakespeare

I’ve been reading Jonathan Bate’s Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare. Before this one, I had read two other biographies of Shakespeare: Bill Bryson mostly focuses on what’s fact, what’s myth, and what’s conjecture, and Anthony Burgess writes it from the perspective of a novelist, imagining the man Shakespeare could have been like. Jonathan Bate’s book, as suggested by the title, focuses on the mind: What was Shakespeare (most likely) taught in grammar school? What did he read? Who most influenced him? 

For example:

“The composition of Latin epistles was intended to make the boys skilled in rhetoric, the persuasive use of words for the purposes of argument. Rhetoric meant learning how to order your speeches: exordium, narration, arguments in favor, arguments against, refutation, exemplification, testimony, conclusion. It meant honing your metaphors and developing elaborate figures of verbal symmetry—syllepsis, antimetabole, zeugma, threefold amplificatio (otherwise known as tricolon).” (Ch.5) 

This is how he learnt to see different points of view and argued for different sides. 

“One of the most popular texts in the Elizabethan classroom was the Heroides, Ovid's verse epistles written from the point of view of women in mythology who are deserted by their lovers—Ariadne on Naxos, Dido after the departure of Aeneas from Carthage, and so on. A frequent exercise was to imitate them—“write a letter in the style of X or from the point of view of someone who has suffered Y”—and in this sense they, like the letters of Cicero and Erasmus, would have helped the student Shakespeare to take his first steps in the art of dramatic impersonation. John Lyly and Christopher Marlowe, the two dramatists who most influenced him when he began writing plays himself, both made extensive use of the Heroides as models for the art of a character's self-examination at moments of emotional crisis. The art, that is to say, of soliloquy.” (Ch.7) 

Those who think the real Shakespeare couldn’t have been a glover’s son who went to grammar school don’t seem to realise that grammar school did equip Shakespeare with many skills needed for becoming a playwright. The rest was reading, observation, and genius.

In chapter 7, Bate writes about the translation movement, and the importance of Thomas North (who translated Plutarch) and John Florio (who translated Montaigne): 

“But since gentlemen readers—and even relatively humble aspiring gentlemen such as Shakespeare—could comfortably read Latin texts in the original, why was such a high proportion of the literary canon of the ancient Romans translated into the vernacular in the Elizabethan period?” (ibid.) 

That’s an interesting question. 

“To judge from the authorial prefaces to these and the many other works from the classics undertaken in the 1560s and 1570s, the translation movement formed a concerted effort to demonstrate that the English tongue was dignified enough to express the wisdom of the ancients.” (ibid.) 

The translation movement, he says, was motivated by “nationalism and the ideology of aggressive Protestantism”, but: 

“... as so often with literary publication, the law of unintended consequences came into force: though the translation movement was by and large aimed at the courtly elite and dedicated to Protestant nationalism, it provided literate middle-ranking figures such as Shakespeare with a wealth of material that could be pressed into the service of other intentions— such as the composition of entertaining, thought-provoking plays.” (ibid.) 

Bate then writes about what Shakespeare may have learnt from Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. I’m not going to copy anything here, so you should get the book and read it yourself. 

The most important influence on Shakespeare seems to be Ovid.

“Scholars have calculated that about 90 percent of Shakespeare's allusions to classical mythology refer to stories included in that epic compendium of tales.” (ibid.) 

This is followed by a fascinating passage in the book where Jonathan Bate demonstrates that Shakespeare knew Metamorphoses in both the original Latin and Arthur Golding’s translation. 

“Like Ovid, Shakespeare is interested in the mingled yarn of our human fabric. Both are writers who probe our humanity with great rigor, but ultimately do so in a spirit of sympathy for our frailties and indulgences, rather than stern judgment upon our faults. […] 

Though Prospero's speech valuably demonstrates Shakespeare's continuing interest in the minutiae of Ovid's language even to the end of his career, it is exceptional in the detail of its borrowing. Shakespeare's more habitual use of the Metamorphoses was less specific. He would refer to the stories there as parallels, or paradigms, for the emotional turmoil of the characters in his plays. Where Ovid told of bodily metamorphoses wrought by extremes of passion, Shakespeare translated these into psychological transformations and vivid metaphors. In particular, he found in Ovid a great store of examples of female feeling—something that was notably lacking in many of his other models, such as the plays of Marlowe and the history books of Plutarch and Holinshed. What mattered to him most was Ovid's storytelling, and for that the Latin text was not necessary—in rereading Ovid for pleasure after he left school, Shakespeare seems mostly to have relied on Golding's English version.” (ibid.) 

Bate does make me want to read Ovid. He also wrote a book called How the Classics Made Shakespeare, though I’m not going to read it anytime soon as I haven’t read any classical literature. 

One of the arguments of anti-Stratfordians is that there’s no evidence that Shakespeare owned books (but as Bill Bryson points out, there’s also no evidence that he wore pants). James Shapiro also argues in Contested Will that a) Shakespeare’s list of books would not have been mentioned in his will and the full list of things he owned no longer survives; and b) there were many ways Shakespeare would have got access to books without necessarily buying them, especially when he’s a playwright. 

Jonathan Bate makes the same point: 

“As he borrowed words and stories, so he may have borrowed rather than bought some of his books.” (Ch.9) 

Considering that Shakespeare was a playwright and needed material, and also knew publishers, translators, courtiers (he had patrons), and other playwrights, borrowing books or getting them at a discount seems an easy task. The authorship conspiracies all boil down to snobbery and ignorance.  

“Books were usually kept in a chest, which would have been heavy to transport. Shakespeare traveled light. He moved between temporary lodgings in London, where he never had a permanent home. He was said to have traveled back to Stratford at least once a year. It is hard to imagine his book chest being carted along with him. He had a restless imagination, not a Jonsonian predilection for mental hoarding. He would gut a book for its nourishment, then cast it aside. Once he finished his cycle of English history plays, he put away his Holinshed for a number of years. The old play scripts that he recycled in his early work probably went back into company stock. Once he had turned Arthur Brooke's labored narrative poem The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet into an anything-but-labored play, he would have had no reason ever to pick it up again.” (ibid.) 

Bate then speculates which books Shakespeare must have owned (Golding’s translation of Metamorphoses and North’s translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives were surely among them), but it’s very possible that, as he says, Shakespeare “would gut a book for its nourishment, then cast it aside”. I can certainly relate to the idea of Shakespeare not owning many books, as I myself love literature but don’t own that many books (reading and book buying, as you can probably see from Book Twitter, are two separate hobbies). 

I’m very much enjoying Soul of the Age. It’s fascinating to learn about the literary works that inspired Shakespeare and the works that may have shaped him as a writer. Jonathan Bate also makes me love Shakespeare even more. 

Review of Scott Newstok’s How to Think Like Shakespeare

I should start off by saying that I received a copy from the author to review. But don’t worry, I’m not paid for it, and anyone who knows me knows that I can’t flatter anyone and I’m too blunt for my own good.  

That said, I think it’s an enjoyable and thought-provoking book. One complaint I have about How to Think Like Shakespeare: Lessons from a Renaissance Education is that it’s a bit of a misleading title: it made me think that it’s a book about Shakespeare, for Shakespeare’s fans (such as me), but it’s about education. Once I got that out of my head, it’s an interesting book.

In 14 chapters, Scott Newstok examines 14 subjects, 14 ways in which education today isn’t quite working (he focuses on American education but certain values and trends can also be found in other countries), and he writes about what we could learn from a Renaissance education, the kind of education that produced Shakespeare. 

“Thinking like Shakespeare untangles a host of today’s confused—let’s be blunt: just plain wrong—educational binaries. We now act as if work precludes play; imitation impedes creativity; tradition stifles autonomy; constrain limits innovation; discipline somehow contradicts freedom; engagement with what is past and foreign occludes what is present and native.”  

The most interesting chapters for me are perhaps 8 “Of Imitation”, 9 “Of Exercises”, 10 “Of Conversation”, 11 “Of Stock”, 12 “Of Constraint”, and 14 “Of Freedom”. Newstok makes lots of good points. I do think, for example, that people now are not taught to argue, especially argue against themselves and their own positions; many people see “argument” as a bad word, Devil’s advocate as a bad thing, and are incapable of considering different sides to an issue and different arguments on each side. There is too much certainty in the current climate, too much cant, too much black-and-white thinking. There is too much us vs them mentality, too much conformity, too much intolerance. 

I’ve also noticed an ignorance of and indifference, if not outright hostility, to tradition and classic works. In English-speaking countries, many people including teachers no longer care about cultural inheritance or legacy of the past, and only talk about relevance and relatability. A lot of it seems to come from an ignorance of the past, ignorance of context and history and development. Some teachers, for example, see Shakespeare’s plays through the lens of feminism or post-colonial theory or anti-racism or some fashionable ism, impose modern standards on his works, and want to remove him from the curriculum, partly because they don’t understand literature and can’t talk about literary merit, and partly because they look at the plays alone, ripped off from context, and have no understanding of literary history and Shakespeare’s influence on literature and other arts. 

Scott Newstok doesn’t name those movements and doesn’t directly talk about the attacks on Shakespeare and the Western canon. He focuses on what’s not right with today’s education and what could be learnt from a Renaissance education, though it does help me see the roots of the problems I’ve been noticing in academia and the teaching of literature in English-speaking countries. 

Sometimes a chapter feels a bit too short and makes me want something more. In “Of Imitation”, for example, I want more counter-arguments, and want to read more about how one moves beyond imitation. Newstok is right that imitation was seen as a good thing in Shakespeare’s days and a bad thing now, and today’s culture values (or is supposed to value) originality, but contradictingly we’re also living in an age of countless film adaptations of the same books over and over again, we’re also living in an age of remakes and reboots and modernisations and prequels and sequels and spin-offs. 

Or, in “Of Attention”, he writes about distraction and the overload of information, but I’m not quite sure what the solution is for better attention.

Overall, it’s still a thought-provoking book. Newstok also lets me see how many of Shakespeare’s qualities, such as his ability to consider every side to an issue and ability to enter the minds of such a wide range of characters, were partly shaped by the education he got at grammar school. I enjoy that. 

If you consider reading How to Think Like Shakespeare, it’s only 163 pages (not counting the thanks and index).   

Education and privilege in Mansfield Park

These are 2 important themes in Jane Austen’s novel—they are linked to some extent, so I’ll discuss them in the same post. 
1/ In my earlier post defending Fanny Price, I already wrote about her situation—she’s sent off to live with her rich relatives from a young age. 
This is an important point, and even though Jane Austen’s always painfully aware of class, women’s position in society, and the importance of a good income, I think Mansfield Park is the one most conscious of wealth and privilege. 
When Fanny enters Mansfield, her cousins think that her ignorance of languages and geography and her lack of accomplishments is due to her stupidity, instead of lack of education. 
As she and the Bertrams grow up together, they seem to receive the same education, but she doesn’t play any musical instrument. 

2/ Note this line about Maria and Julia: 

“… it is not very wonderful that, with all their promising talents and early information, they should be entirely deficient in the less common acquirements of self-knowledge, generosity and humility. In everything but disposition they were admirably taught. Sir Thomas did not know what was wanting, because, though a truly anxious father, he was not outwardly affectionate, and the reserve of his manner repressed all the flow of their spirits before him.” (Ch.2) 

Jane Austen says something similar again later: 

“Poor Julia, the only one out of the nine not tolerably satisfied with their lot, was now in a state of complete penance, and as different from the Julia of the barouche-box as could well be imagined. The politeness which she had been brought up to practise as a duty made it impossible for her to escape; while the want of that higher species of self-command, that just consideration of others, that knowledge of her own heart, that principle of right, which had not formed any essential part of her education, made her miserable under it.” (Ch.9) 

As I wrote in the previous blog post, self-knowledge and consideration of others are the qualities most important to Jane Austen, and they’re stressed in these passages. Maria and Julia get a formal education, and have the accomplishments of a lady, but lack a moral education. It is no wonder that Mansfield Park is not very popular—it is a serious work, in which education is a central theme and the author criticises an education that neglects principle and morality. 
The passages above also apply perfectly for Henry and Mary Crawford. 
At the end of the book, Sir Thomas realises and regrets the faults of his parenting: 

“Here had been grievous mismanagement; but, bad as it was, he gradually grew to feel that it had not been the most direful mistake in his plan of education. Something must have been wanting within, or time would have worn away much of its ill effect. He feared that principle, active principle, had been wanting; that they had never been properly taught to govern their inclinations and tempers by that sense of duty which can alone suffice. They had been instructed theoretically in their religion, but never required to bring it into daily practice. To be distinguished for elegance and accomplishments, the authorised object of their youth, could have had no useful influence that way, no moral effect on the mind. He had meant them to be good, but his cares had been directed to the understanding and manners, not the disposition; and of the necessity of self-denial and humility, he feared they had never heard from any lips that could profit them.” (Ch.48) 

In comparison, Fanny lacks some of a lady’s accomplishments, but has good self-awareness and acute perceptiveness of other people’s character and feelings, which all of the Bertram children lack.
Fanny also has strong principles. There are some people who see her refusal to act in the play and refusal to marry Henry as a passivity, but there is nothing passive about holding fast to your principles, believing in yourself, and resisting pressure from everyone else. 

3/ Look at the 3 guardians at Mansfield Park: Sir Thomas, Lady Bertram, and Mrs Norris. 
Lady Bertram is helpless and ineffectual as a mother. It is stated from the start: 

“To the education of her daughters Lady Bertram paid not the smallest attention. She had not time for such cares.” (Ch.2) 

Sir Thomas is severe and distant, so the education mostly falls on Mrs Norris, who is meddlesome, officious, and small-minded, with very little sense. She makes bad judgments, spoils the girls with flattery, and gives them no good model. 
Jane Austen’s heroines often have silly, useless, or neglectful parents, but Sir Thomas is the most interesting of all. He is not a tyrant, but he is severe, and he is the kind of parent who forbids his children from doing wrong, without teaching them to know right from wrong. His children therefore learn to hide things from him, and disobey him in his absence. 
This is something that resonates with me, because my mom has taught me to know right from wrong, and didn’t have to forbid me from doing things. Too often I’ve seen parents control and spy on children, or punish them for doing something they don’t allow and say “Because I said so”, instead of reasoning about why it’s wrong. 

4/ Isn’t it interesting that under such guardians, Edmund turns out all right? He has faults, and isn’t very perceptive (he’s wrong about everything except Fanny’s goodness), but overall is a sensitive, principled, honest, and kind man.   
Does that mean that in this case, nature is more important than nurture? 

5/ Let’s move onto the Price family. 

“Of her two sisters, Mrs. Price very much more resembled Lady Bertram than Mrs. Norris. She was a manager by necessity, without any of Mrs. Norris's inclination for it, or any of her activity. Her disposition was naturally easy and indolent, like Lady Bertram's; and a situation of similar affluence and do-nothingness would have been much more suited to her capacity than the exertions and self-denials of the one which her imprudent marriage had placed her in. She might have made just as good a woman of consequence as Lady Bertram, but Mrs. Norris would have been a more respectable mother of nine children on a small income.” (Ch.39) 

Fanny is disappointed in her parents. The problem with her Portsmouth home is not its poverty, but its chaos, noise, and lack of harmony and respect, and it’s because of her indifferent parents. In different ways, the Bertrams and the Prices both neglect the education of their children. 
Here, Fanny sees that her mother is similar to Lady Bertram, and acknowledges that Mrs Norris has some merit. At the same time, if we take that comparison and turn it around, Lady Bertram is similar to Mrs Price, and can get away with her indolence and irresponsibility only because of her wealth and status. Without them, she wouldn’t be seen as any better. 
At some point, there’s another comparison between the sisters: 

“Her poor mother now did not look so very unworthy of being Lady Bertram's sister as she was but too apt to look. It often grieved her to the heart to think of the contrast between them; to think that where nature had made so little difference, circumstances should have made so much, and that her mother, as handsome as Lady Bertram, and some years her junior, should have an appearance so much more worn and faded, so comfortless, so slatternly, so shabby.” (Ch.42)

6/ In Portsmouth, Fanny’s shocked by the disorder, and shocked by Susan’s manners and language. However, she comes to understand Susan. 

“... it was at least a fortnight before she began to understand a disposition so totally different from her own. Susan saw that much was wrong at home, and wanted to set it right. That a girl of fourteen, acting only on her own unassisted reason, should err in the method of reform, was not wonderful; and Fanny soon became more disposed to admire the natural light of the mind which could so early distinguish justly, than to censure severely the faults of conduct to which it led. Susan was only acting on the same truths, and pursuing the same system, which her own judgment acknowledged, but which her more supine and yielding temper would have shrunk from asserting. Susan tried to be useful, where she could only have gone away and cried; and that Susan was useful she could perceive; that things, bad as they were, would have been worse but for such interposition, and that both her mother and Betsey were restrained from some excesses of very offensive indulgence and vulgarity.” (Ch.40) 

Anyone who sees Fanny as a figure of passivity can just look at her relationship with Susan—that is a good counter-example. 

“Her greatest wonder on the subject soon became—not that Susan should have been provoked into disrespect and impatience against her better knowledge—but that so much better knowledge, so many good notions should have been hers at all; and that, brought up in the midst of negligence and error, she should have formed such proper opinions of what ought to be; she, who had had no cousin Edmund to direct her thoughts or fix her principles.” (ibid.) 

There are many things Susan doesn’t know, not having the education and privilege, and she doesn’t read—she needs to move to Mansfield for a better environment and better opportunities. But at the same time, “brought up in the midst of negligence and error”, she still knows right from wrong, and tries to fix things. 
In the character of Susan, Jane Austen again raises the question of nature vs nurture, and comments on the subject of privilege. 

7/ People usually say that Jane Austen’s heroines usually grow and gain self-knowledge throughout the book, except Fanny, who is right about everything and right the entire time (uhm… what about Anne Elliot?).   
That is not entirely true. Fanny Price does gain self-knowledge at the end of the book—it’s just not the same kind of self-knowledge that Catherine Morland and Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse come to have. 
She gains self-knowledge when she’s at her Portsmouth house. I just had a discussion with Himadri (Argumentative Old Git)—he said, Mansfield Park is about displacement and personal identity. Some critics (including Vladimir Nabokov) complain about Jane Austen staying with Fanny for the entire story and not depicting the “interesting” stuff with Maria and Henry, or Julia and Mr Yates, but the real interesting stuff happens in Portsmouth. It’s at Portsmouth that Fanny discovers who she is, and where she really belongs—that Mansfield is home.  
Perhaps that is why Mansfield Park is so dear, so personal to me. 




If there is any student out there who steals ideas from my blog for an assignment, let me know what you get. 

Chuyện Vũ Thạch Tường Minh và giáo dục VN: Trả lời vài bình luận

Gần đây ở buổi hội thảo Cánh Buồm, Vũ Thạch Tường Minh, 1 học sinh lớp 8, 14 tuổi, có phát biểu như sau: 

"Một điều mà con muốn nói với chính phủ Việt Nam, hay cụ thể hơn là Bộ Giáo dục, theo con, các vị bộ trưởng, thứ trưởng giáo dục không phải là nên áp dụng cả bộ sách này, mà là áp dụng cái lối giáo dục của bộ sách này vào giáo dục Việt Nam, bởi vì bây giờ giáo dục Việt Nam con thấy là, con không có tính từ nào khác nên con phải dùng tính từ này, là giáo dục Việt Nam bây giờ con thấy là quá ‘thối nát’ rồi. Mà suốt bao năm qua các vị cải đi, cải lại, cải tiến, cải lùi mà nó vẫn không thay đổi được kết quả gì cả. Nên bây giờ con muốn các vị bộ trưởng, thứ trưởng hãy thay đổi đường lối giáo dục của Việt Nam, có thể theo đường lối của Cánh Buồm cũng được, các vị có thể thay cả bộ sách giáo khoa cũng được. Các vị có thể nói là mất thời gian, nhưng con thấy là thời gian các vị cải tiến, cải lùi còn mất thời gian hơn. Giáo dục Việt Nam không cần cải cách gì nữa, giáo dục Việt Nam cần được cách mạng. Đó mới là điều các vị trong Bộ Giáo dục nên làm. Còn nếu bây giờ các vị không làm thì đến khi nào con thành Bộ trưởng Bộ Giáo dục con sẽ làm." 

Suốt mấy hôm nay trên mạng có rất nhiều ý kiến bình luận, và trong bài viết này tôi muốn tập trung vào 3 vấn đề như sau: 1, tuổi. 2, bằng chứng và trải nghiệm. 3, giải pháp. 
Thứ nhất, chuyện tuổi. Chẳng hạn như bài viết của 1 vị tên Đức Hiển: 
https://www.facebook.com/bocuhung/posts/10153607779419090
Trong đó có các cụm "cậu học trò nhỏ hơn con nhà mình", "trẻ con", "trẻ em", "ông oắt"..., nhấn đi nhấn lại tuổi tác nhiều hơn nội dung câu nói của Tường Minh. Đấy là ageism. Ông Đức Hiển viết "còn quá nhiều điều cậu chưa đủ hiểu để mà nói với nội dung ấy, thái độ ấy" và "không hiểu hết", xin hỏi những điều chưa đủ hiểu là gì? Còn cụm "Nếu đó là suy nghĩ thật của cậu bé", không lẽ 14 tuổi chưa phải là tuổi có thể tự suy nghĩ, tự có kết luận của riêng mình? 
Ở 1 trang khác, tôi thấy có vị tên Pham Tuan viết "Mặc dù cháu bé nói đúng, nhưng không thích vậy và cũng không ủng hộ khi một đứa bé ăn nói như thế. Chắc chắn là phải có người lớn mớm lời đàng sau." 1 vị tên Han Phan viết "Mình cũng thấy thằng nhóc đó nói như bị nhồi sọ, nhưng từ 1 chiều khác." Nếu 14 tuổi chưa phải là tuổi để suy nghĩ độc lập, để có ý kiến riêng, bao giờ là có thể? Nếu các vị không có critical thinking ở tuổi 14, đó là vấn đề của các vị. 
Cái tôi thấy ở đây không phải là độ tuổi của Tường Minh. Nếu người phát biểu học lớp 12, sẽ có người nói chưa lên đại học, chưa "vào đời", biết chi mà nói. Nếu người phát biểu lớn tuổi, sẽ có người bảo không còn đi học, làm sao biết giáo dục cải cách ra sao. Nếu người phát biểu thuộc ngành giáo dục, sẽ có người bảo sao không đóng góp bằng cách của mình. Nếu người phát biểu ngoài ngành giáo dục, sẽ có người nói có hơn được ai không mà chỉ trích. Và sẽ luôn có luận điệu người nói được mớm lời, hoặc nhận tiền nước ngoài, hoặc thuộc đảng Việt Tân, hoặc thất bại trong cuộc sống và đổ lỗi cho nhà nước, v.v... 
Ông Đức Hiển viết: 

"Hãy để cho nó hồn nhiên!Người lớn văn minh nên để trẻ con nó được làm trẻ con!" 

Không, người lớn văn minh nên khuyến khích trẻ em có suy nghĩ riêng và dám nói cái mình nghĩ. Người lớn văn minh nên khuyến khích trẻ em có tinh thần phê phán và quan tâm đến những chuyện ảnh hưởng trực tiếp đến mình như nền giáo dục. Người lớn văn minh nên để trẻ em có tinh thần trách nhiệm và nghĩ đến cái chung. Quan trọng hơn hết, người lớn văn minh nên lắng nghe, tôn trọng và để trẻ em nói, đừng chặn đầu kiểu "con nít thì biết gì". 14 tuổi không phải là con nít. 14 tuổi không phải là tuổi ăn rồi chơi rồi tới lớp bị động giáo viên nói gì nghe nấy. 14 tuổi không phải là tuổi để tất cả mọi chuyện cho người lớn lo, đặc biệt khi người lớn có suy nghĩ và hành xử như ông Đức Hiển. Những người như ông bảo giáo dục VN không thối nát, nhưng đã đưa chính bản thân mình ra làm minh chứng cho sự thối nát của giáo dục VN mà không biết. 
Lớn tuổi hơn không có nghĩa là hiểu biết hơn hay khôn ngoan hơn. Đừng lấy tuổi tác ra để tấn công người khác và cho mình authority. Đừng vì trước kia mình không nghĩ được đến thế, liền kết luận mọi người khác đều như các vị. 
Đó là chuyện tuổi tác. Thứ 2, bằng chứng và trải nghiệm. 1 vị tên Nguyen Nhu Huy có viết ở đây: 
https://www.facebook.com/nguyennhuhuy/posts/10153556693232264
Theo Nguyen Nhu Huy, phát ngôn của Tường Minh "thiếu nội dung cụ thể", không xuất phát từ kinh nghiệm và viễn kiến của người nói. Tôi công nhận câu của Tường Minh không có ví dụ cụ thể. 
Thế nhưng vị Nguyen Nhu Huy lại viết: 

"Ở góc độ này, phát biểu của cậu bé lớp 8 trong hội thảo của nhóm Cánh Buồm với tôi cũng khá là khó tin y như khi, giả dụ, tôi được nghe một cậu bé lớp 3 lên đứng trước toàn trường phân tích về tác hại của việc đi bar, uống rượu và tình dục không an toàn, đặc biệt là tình dục tay ba, hay tay tư trở lên." 

Đây là so sánh vừa khập khiễng vừa vô duyên. 1 cậu bé lớp 3 theo lẽ thường đương nhiên không biết về bar, nhưng 1 học sinh lớp 8, đã qua 7 năm của nhà trường VN, không thể nói gì về giáo dục VN? Ai không thấy giáo dục VN có quá nhiều kiến thức chết, đặc biệt trong mấy môn khoa học tự nhiên như toán, lý, hóa, sinh? Ai không thấy trường học tập trung quá ít vào kỹ năng sống? Ai không thấy học sinh VN học môn địa bao nhiêu năm vẫn lờ mờ địa lý thế giới? Ai không thấy môn triết học không dạy gì ngoài Marx-Lenin? Ai không thấy suốt bao nhiêu năm, qua cấp 1, gần hết cấp 2, giờ Anh văn vẫn cứ hello how are you I'm fine thank you and you? Ai không thấy môn sử chỉ vòng đi vòng lại sử cổ đại và sử cách mạng với 1 chút về sử VN thời phong kiến để cuối cùng học sinh không biết lịch sử thế giới như chiến tranh thế giới thứ nhất thứ 2 hay chiến tranh lạnh, cũng lờ mờ lịch sử VN? Ai không thấy môn văn ở VN suốt bao nhiêu năm không cho đọc 1 tiểu thuyết hoàn chỉnh, chỉ thơ, truyện ngắn, và trích đoạn, và giáo viên giảng tác phẩm có nghĩa gì, hiểu ra sao, hay ở đâu, cho học sinh máy móc chép lại và không được viết khác? Ai không thấy ở VN học sinh được dạy nghĩ theo 1 luồng, nói theo 1 lối? Ai không thấy giáo dục VN không khuyến khích critical thinking, không ủng hộ chống lại authority? Ai không thấy chương trình học quá nặng chỉ làm học sinh học vẹt, học tủ, học cho xong kỳ thi để cuối năm trả lại hết cho giáo viên? Ai không thấy tất cả từ trường lớp đến học trò và các bậc phụ huynh đều chạy đua theo thành tích?
Bảo giáo dục VN khiếm khuyết là quá nhẹ, nói thối nát vẫn là nhẹ, nhưng tôi không nghĩ ra từ nào khác nặng hơn. Cải cách với các vị trong Bộ Giáo dục chỉ là bốc kiến thức năm này cắm vào năm khác, hoặc có những thay đổi ngớ ngẩn kiểu đổi chữ e lên đầu bảng chữ cái, đấy không phải là cải cách. Nhưng không chỉ cải cách, giáo dục VN phải thay đổi từ gốc, phải lật đổ tất cả và xây dựng lại từ đầu.
Tường Minh có thể không đưa ra dẫn chứng và kinh nghiệm cụ thể (tôi không nghĩ Tường Minh có thể, trong hoàn cảnh ấy), nhưng Tường Minh có công mở ra 1 cuộc tranh luận. 
Điều thứ 3, giải pháp. Trên báo Thanh niên có 1 bài của 1 vị tên Khánh Hưng: 
http://www.thanhnien.com.vn/toi-viet/dung-dung-duong-van-hoa-chui-trong-dau-nhung-dua-tre-597875.html
Trong đó có câu: 

"Rất cần những thế hệ trẻ tâm huyết với nền giáo dục nhưng sự tâm huyết hãy bày tỏ bằng nhiều cách khác nhau, chứ không phải theo cách mà nhiều người lớn hiện nay đang làm là “chửi nền giáo dục nước nhà”." 

Xin hỏi nhiều cách khác nhau là cách gì? 
Nhà văn Trang Hạ cũng nhảy vào góp ý kiến: 
http://www.baomoi.com/Nha-van-Trang-Ha-Neu-cuoc-doi-ban-that-bai-sao-lai-do-loi-cho-Bo-truong-Giao-duc/59/17290769.epi

"Và điều em gây chú ý nằm ở số tuổi của em chứ không nằm ở nội dung em nói ra. Vì phát biểu của em hết sức chung chung và giáo điều, không đưa ra căn cứ, không giải pháp, không trải nghiệm, nói toàn thứ đã quá thừa người nói trong suốt thời gian qua, và quá thiếu hiệu ích trong xã hội này.Thứ giáo dục Việt Nam đang cần là những chính sách cụ thể với những chuẩn cụ thể. Vì vậy, tôi đồ rằng, nếu trở thành bộ trưởng thực sự trong tương lai, em sẽ là một bộ trưởng thậm chí rất... tệ." 

Nghĩ ra chính sách cụ thể không phải là trách nhiệm của 1 học sinh lớp 8, cô Trang Hạ ạ. 
Cả 2 bài, và 1 số người khác, đều nói thay vì ngồi chửi, phải nghĩ ra giải pháp. Lập luận này có 2 vấn đề. 1, giả sử tôi nói "Các vị ngu xuẩn thế", đấy là chửi. Câu của Tường Minh không phải là chửi. 2, trước khi nói chuyện giải pháp, bước đầu tiên người ta phải thấy có vấn đề. Nếu không ai thấy có vấn đề, làm sao có bước tìm giải pháp? Tường Minh đã làm bước đầu tiên, là nhìn thấy và thừa nhận vấn đề của nền giáo dục VN, việc rất nhiều người, như các vị tôi đề cập, chưa làm được.
Trang Hạ bảo: 

"Bạn làm ơn đừng lớn tiếng phê phán ông Bộ trưởng Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo về những thất bại của cuộc đời bạn hay cuộc đời con bạn. Bởi ta là người duy nhất phải chịu trách nhiệm về những vấn đề của cá nhân mình." 

Thế xin hỏi người ta mở trường học ra để làm gì? Người ta đẻ ra Bộ Giáo dục để làm gì? Người ta đóng thuế và đóng học phí để làm gì, nếu nhà trường không thể cung cấp cái học sinh cần và cha mẹ phải lo mọi thứ? Hoặc như cô Trang Hạ nói, "cha mẹ không gì tốt bằng việc tạo điều kiện để các con tự học, tự giáo dục"? Nếu các vị đã nói thế, các vị nên đóng luôn các trường học cho rồi. 
"Tôi không nhìn thấy sự tích cực nào ở trong đấy cả." Vậy thế nào là tích cực? Chỉ nói tốt? Chỉ lo chuyện mình? Giải quyết kiểu các bậc phụ huynh VN lâu nay đang làm là cho con học trường quốc tế hoặc sang thẳng nước ngoài học? Hay cố gắng leo lên chức Bộ trưởng và tìm cách loay hoay trong 1 guồng máy thối nát? Như đã nói, muốn thay đổi trước tiên phải nghĩ cần thay đổi, phải nghĩ có vấn đề, phải phê phán. Nếu tất cả mọi người đều suy nghĩ như cô Trang Hạ, sẽ không bao giờ có cách mạng và sẽ không bao giờ có xã hội nào phát triển. Rất may, không phải ai cũng thế. 
Cuối cùng, cô Trang Hạ nói, "ta là người duy nhất phải chịu trách nhiệm về những vấn đề của cá nhân mình", thế sự thờ ơ, theo chủ nghĩa cá nhân ("Trước tiên chúng ta phải tự tìm giải pháp cho cuộc đời của mình và cho con cái của mình"), cách nhìn hạn hẹp chỉ ở mức độ mỗi con người làm gì (không thấy toàn bộ hệ thống cần phải thay đổi) và thiếu critical thinking của cô là do nền giáo dục hay do cô tự học? 
Đó là sơ sơ vài bình luận trong chuyện Vũ Thạch Tường Minh. 
Riêng với Tường Minh: em nói đúng, chị ủng hộ em. Những người đả kích em, đặc biệt những người đã lớn mà không lớn, em không cần quan tâm. Thế nhé. 

Should linguists speak more than 1 language? (P.2)

I've just read chapter 10 "Strukturer i målspråk og morsmål" in "Med språklige minoriteter i klassen. Språklige og faglige utfordringer" by Kirsti MacDonald and Ryen Else in my kompedium, in which the Vietnamese language is mentioned a few times, with a few words on the structure, syntax... 
There are some silly errors.
1/ People seem to have a mistaken view (which I've encountered a few times) that as the Vietnamese language lacks inflections, there must be function words to denote tense such as đã for the past and sẽ for the future.
As a native speaker, I do not know how Vietnamese is taught as an 2nd or foreign language, but I would say that we rarely say đã or sẽ and sentences with either of these 2 words used superfluously sound weird to us. Let me clarify. Sẽ can be used for the future tense, as in Tôi sẽ nói với ông ấy (I will tell him) or Con trai tôi sẽ lấy vợ vào đầu năm sau (My son is going to get married at the beginning of next year) or Thằng đấy sẽ chết sớm nếu cứ hủy hoại bản thân như thế (That guy will soon die if he keeps destroying his own body that way). But it isn't always compulsory. We can say Mai tao làm (Tomorrow I'll do it) or Năm sau anh đi Úc (I'm going to go to Australia next year) or Tuần sau nó qua chơi Oslo (Next week he/she is visiting Oslo). In other words, as far as I know, sẽ can be dropped when there are adverbials denoting the future tense.
Saying Mai tao sẽ làm, Năm sau anh sẽ đi Úc and Tuần sau nó sẽ qua chơi Oslo is not very natural but OK. 
Đã is slightly different. We can say Hôm qua tao đi bộ về nhà (Yesterday I walked home) or Con làm bài tập tối qua (I did my homework yesterday evening) or Chị tớ tốt nghiệp đại học 2 năm trước (My sister graduated from university 2 years ago), without đã. The word đã is used to emphasise that something has been done, finished, which means it is acceptable in the 2nd and the 3rd sentences (and they are better translated as I already did my homework yesterday evening and My sister already graduated from university 2 years ago), but no one says Hôm qua tao đã đi bộ về nhà. In some sentences, đã denotes the present perfect, instead of the past tense. For instance, Con đã làm bài tập (I have done my homework). Sometimes đã can be replaced with rồi, though it is also present perfect- Mình bảo rồi (I've told you), and if it's past tense, rồi also emphasises the fact that something has been done, as in Con làm bài tập tối qua rồi (I already did my homework yesterday evening).
Which means that the example in the book is wrong. Tim reiste cannot be translated as Tim đã đi.

2/ The book says hus (house) is nhà and huset (the house) is nhà ây.
The 1st issue is ây. Apparently they mean ấy. The Vietnamese language has 5 diacritics and these tiny things make all the difference.
The 2nd issue is that ấy is not used very commonly as an equivalent of the, this, that... in English. We may say cô ấy, bà ấy, chị ấy, anh ấy, ông ấy, lão ấy... but these words would be translated as she or he. We may say chuyện ấy, but usually it's better translated as it, this or that, as in Chuyện ấy không liên quan gì tới anh (This doesn't have anything to do with you), though very often Vietnamese people use the word chuyện ấy to refer to sex, and cái ấy (literal: that thing) to refer to penis. The word ấy may be used for time, such as năm ấy (that year), ngày ấy (that day), etc. But I definitely don't use ấy for things such as tables, desks, pens, bottles, pillows, laptops, phones, wardrobes, TVs... (basically the objects around me now). Đó, for instance, is a better word.
The 3rd issue is that huset is definitely not translated as nhà ấy, but not as nhà đó either. There must be a word before it, such as căn, ngôi or cái. Nhà, without any word preceding, very often means home, family, husband or wife. The same goes with other things, there must always be some word before it, such as con for animals, in general, or cái/ chiếc for things, in general, though it's more complex and diverse.
etc. etc.


See the danger of not speaking many languages or of speaking languages that are not very different, linguists?
See the danger of talking about a language one doesn't actually know?

Discovery of "The argumentative old git"

Himadri, aka Argumentative old git, an Indian growing up in Britain. In his 50s. A classic literature lover, especially Russian literature, or at least, heavily influenced by it.

1/ A beautiful passage Himadri wrote about Tolstoy:
"In our modern times, we tend not to believe in the concept of transcendence: if the material word is the only world there is, then there can be nothing to transcend to, and all feelings, all emotions, are either merely “feelbad” or “feelgood”: “feelgood” is what we should all strive for, as this, after all, is the sole purpose of living; and “feelbad” is what you take anti-depressants to ward off. This is perhaps why I come away from so many modern novels with the sense that I have witnessed merely small, insignificant people experiencing small, insignificant feelings. But with Tolstoy, I feel I am in a much bigger world. No other writer, I think, has depicted the physical surfaces of our lives so meticulously; but Tolstoy depicts also a sense of transcendence, even though we can but vaguely know what those regions may be that we are transcending to. He depicts that sense sublime of something that is more deeply interfused – something that refuses to be pinned down, but which we cannot ignore without diminishing ourselves. It is in that sense of joy we feel even as we grieve, even as we feel pain – even as we are disturbed. It is certainly what Levin feels when he unexpectedly catches sight of Kitty in the carriage."
(http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/on-joy-a-scene-from-anna-karenina/)

2/ http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/happy-families-unhappy-families-the-two-strands-of-anna-karenina/
The article analyses how "Anna Karenina" is much more than a juxtaposition of stories about an unhappy family (Anna- Vronsky) and a happy family (Kitty- Levin). "I find it hard to believe that a writer who could create a work of such endless complexity would splice the two stories together simply to depict something so banal as a contrast between happiness and unhappiness, light and shade. The ties binding these stories together must be stronger than merely this."
Himadri also mentions a 3rd family in the novel, which, structurally, holds together the 2 strands- Anna is Stiva Oblonsky's sister and Kitty is Dolly's, and raises the question on whether this family may be considered happy or unhappy.

3/ http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/all-happy-families-are-alike-some-thoughts-half-way-through-anna-karenina/
"Yes, I am reading this very slowly indeed, but I am gasping in wonder and in astonishment in just about every page. Tolstoy, despite his reputation for didacticism, does not judge: Tolstoy once said that fiction is most effective when the author is not seen to take sides. This may seem strange coming from an author renowned for his didacticism, but he lives up to his principle: here, instead of judging, he explores. He questions incessantly the extent to which these characters are responsible for what they do, for being who they are. As he enters the mind of each of his characters, it appears that they cannot act otherwise: and yet, each is morally responsible for their own actions, and this remains, right to the end of the novel and beyond, a terrible unsolved paradox. Each of these characters is trapped within their own selves: they cannot even begin to understand their own complex psyches, and, to their terror, appear to rush headlong towards a doom they can vaguely sense, but cannot avoid. The sense of the tragic is intense: never has the terror in our everyday lives been expressed with such disconcerting power."
"My own taste in literature has been moulded by Tolstoy more than by anyone else: I discovered his two great novels as a teenager, and have been reading and re-reading them ever since. And, looking over my personal likes and dislikes, it seems clear to me that I, wittingly or unwittingly, measure all fiction by the yardstick provided by Tolstoy. This naturally has problems: the further any fiction is from Tolstoy’s aesthetics, the less I find myself able to enter into its spirit; and yet, if any author’s aesthetic values do come close to Tolstoy’s, that author almost inevitably falls short."

4/ A response to all the people who think literature should not be taught at school:
http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-teach-literature-in-schools/

5/ On the silliness of "identifying with the characters" as a criterion of literary merit:
http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/identifying-with-characters/

6/ On Emily Bronte, "Wuthering heights" and Romanticism:
http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/wuthering-heights-and-romanticism/

7/ In praise of Charles Dickens, in defence of sentimentality, melodrama and caricatures:
http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/dickens-and-his-detractors/
https://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/on-sentimentality/
https://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/on-melodrama/

8/ http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/flaubert-a-miserable-old-git/
"Gustave Flaubert is known, with reason, as a misanthropic old cynic. And yet, he could be oddly moving."
"Flaubert’s writings present us with a depiction of the utter nothingness at the heart of it all. There is, after all, no-one quite so cynical as a disappointed Romantic: even such inveterate pessimists as Conrad or Beckett were but novices in comparison to Flaubert.
And yet, against all that, there is that extraordinary beauty of his writing. Flaubert’s pessimism isn’t accompanied with an indifferent shrug of the shoulder, but with a profound sadness that things should be so."

9/ Response to an (idiotic) attack on book snobs:
http://argumentativeoldgit.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/an-appeal-on-behalf-of-book-snobs/
(Guess I don't need to tell you I'm a book snob myself?)


The ones linked above may or may not be some of his best entries, they just happen to deal with some writers I love (such as Tolstoy) and something I care about. There are many, many, other great, insightful and thought-provoking posts.
I've just discovered the blog recently, and love it, not only because he and I share some passions and views in common, but also because a) he reminds me of the ecstasy of reading "Anna Karenina" and of discovering Tolstoy and of my wish to read more of Tolstoy's works, b) he reminds me that Russian literature is 1 of the greatest in the world, with so many great, acclaimed, influential authors I haven't read (which is a pity), c) he makes me reconsider an idea developed recently of a kind of writing I like, some sort of standard, because there are various types of good writings and I myself have liked some writers who have different styles and temperaments and at the same time I realise that I have made the same mistake as a group of people I can't stand. So, yeah... 

A discussion on education (or what Anne Bronte can tell us about upbringing)

From "The tenant of Wildfell hall" by Anne Bronte, chapter 3 (the narrator here is Gilbert): 

"...Rose, now, at a hint from my mother, produced a decanter of wine, with accompaniments of glasses and cake, from the cupboard and the oak sideboard, and the refreshment was duly presented to the guests.  They both partook of the cake, but obstinately refused the wine, in spite of their hostess’s hospitable attempts to force it upon them.  Arthur, especially shrank from the ruby nectar as if in terror and disgust, and was ready to cry when urged to take it.

‘Never mind, Arthur,’ said his mamma; ‘Mrs. Markham thinks it will do you good, as you were tired with your walk; but she will not oblige you to take it!—I daresay you will do very well without.  He detests the very sight of wine,’ she added, ‘and the smell of it almost makes him sick.  I have been accustomed to make him swallow a little wine or weak spirits-and-water, by way of medicine, when he was sick, and, in fact, I have done what I could to make him hate them.’

Everybody laughed, except the young widow and her son.

‘Well, Mrs. Graham,’ said my mother, wiping the tears of merriment from her bright blue eyes—‘well, you surprise me!  I really gave you credit for having more sense.—The poor child will be the veriest milksop that ever was sopped!  Only think what a man you will make of him, if you persist in—’

‘I think it a very excellent plan,’ interrupted Mrs. Graham, with imperturbable gravity.  ‘By that means I hope to save him from one degrading vice at least.  I wish I could render the incentives to every other equally innoxious in his case.’

‘But by such means,’ said I, ‘you will never render him virtuous.—What is it that constitutes virtue, Mrs. Graham?  Is it the circumstance of being able and willing to resist temptation; or that of having no temptations to resist?—Is he a strong man that overcomes great obstacles and performs surprising achievements, though by dint of great muscular exertion, and at the risk of some subsequent fatigue, or he that sits in his chair all day, with nothing to do more laborious than stirring the fire, and carrying his food to his mouth?  If you would have your son to walk honourably through the world, you must not attempt to clear the stones from his path, but teach him to walk firmly over them—not insist upon leading him by the hand, but let him learn to go alone.’

‘I will lead him by the hand, Mr. Markham, till he has strength to go alone; and I will clear as many stones from his path as I can, and teach him to avoid the rest—or walk firmly over them, as you say;—for when I have done my utmost, in the way of clearance, there will still be plenty left to exercise all the agility, steadiness, and circumspection he will ever have.—It is all very well to talk about noble resistance, and trials of virtue; but for fifty—or five hundred men that have yielded to temptation, show me one that has had virtue to resist.  And why should I take it for granted that my son will be one in a thousand?—and not rather prepare for the worst, and suppose he will be like his—like the rest of mankind, unless I take care to prevent it?’

‘You are very complimentary to us all,’ I observed.

‘I know nothing about you—I speak of those I do know—and when I see the whole race of mankind (with a few rare exceptions) stumbling and blundering along the path of life, sinking into every pitfall, and breaking their shins over every impediment that lies in their way, shall I not use all the means in my power to insure for him a smoother and a safer passage?’

‘Yes, but the surest means will be to endeavour to fortify him against temptation, not to remove it out of his way.’

‘I will do both, Mr. Markham.  God knows he will have temptations enough to assail him, both from within and without, when I have done all I can to render vice as uninviting to him, as it is abominable in its own nature—I myself have had, indeed, but few incentives to what the world calls vice, but yet I have experienced temptations and trials of another kind, that have required, on many occasions, more watchfulness and firmness to resist than I have hitherto been able to muster against them.  And this, I believe, is what most others would acknowledge who are accustomed to reflection, and wishful to strive against their natural corruptions.’

‘Yes,’ said my mother, but half apprehending her drift; ‘but you would not judge of a boy by yourself—and, my dear Mrs. Graham, let me warn you in good time against the error—the fatal error, I may call it—of taking that boy’s education upon yourself.  Because you are clever in some things and well informed, you may fancy yourself equal to the task; but indeed you are not; and if you persist in the attempt, believe me you will bitterly repent it when the mischief is done.’

‘I am to send him to school, I suppose, to learn to despise his mother’s authority and affection!’ said the lady, with rather a bitter smile.

‘Oh, no!—But if you would have a boy to despise his mother, let her keep him at home, and spend her life in petting him up, and slaving to indulge his follies and caprices.’

‘I perfectly agree with you, Mrs. Markham; but nothing can be further from my principles and practice than such criminal weakness as that.’

‘Well, but you will treat him like a girl—you’ll spoil his spirit, and make a mere Miss Nancy of him—you will, indeed, Mrs. Graham, whatever you may think.  But I’ll get Mr. Millward to talk to you about it:—he’ll tell you the consequences;—he’ll set it before you as plain as the day;—and tell you what you ought to do, and all about it;—and, I don’t doubt, he’ll be able to convince you in a minute.’

‘No occasion to trouble the vicar,’ said Mrs. Graham, glancing at me—I suppose I was smiling at my mother’s unbounded confidence in that worthy gentleman—‘Mr. Markham here thinks his powers of conviction at least equal to Mr. Millward’s.  If I hear not him, neither should I be convinced though one rose from the dead, he would tell you.  Well, Mr. Markham, you that maintain that a boy should not be shielded from evil, but sent out to battle against it, alone and unassisted—not taught to avoid the snares of life, but boldly to rush into them, or over them, as he may—to seek danger, rather than shun it, and feed his virtue by temptation,—would you—?’

‘I beg your pardon, Mrs. Graham—but you get on too fast.  I have not yet said that a boy should be taught to rush into the snares of life,—or even wilfully to seek temptation for the sake of exercising his virtue by overcoming it;—I only say that it is better to arm and strengthen your hero, than to disarm and enfeeble the foe;—and if you were to rear an oak sapling in a hothouse, tending it carefully night and day, and shielding it from every breath of wind, you could not expect it to become a hardy tree, like that which has grown up on the mountain-side, exposed to all the action of the elements, and not even sheltered from the shock of the tempest.’

‘Granted;—but would you use the same argument with regard to a girl?’

‘Certainly not.’

‘No; you would have her to be tenderly and delicately nurtured, like a hot-house plant—taught to cling to others for direction and support, and guarded, as much as possible, from the very knowledge of evil.  But will you be so good as to inform me why you make this distinction?  Is it that you think she has no virtue?’

‘Assuredly not.’

‘Well, but you affirm that virtue is only elicited by temptation;—and you think that a woman cannot be too little exposed to temptation, or too little acquainted with vice, or anything connected therewith.  It must be either that you think she is essentially so vicious, or so feeble-minded, that she cannot withstand temptation,—and though she may be pure and innocent as long as she is kept in ignorance and restraint, yet, being destitute of real virtue, to teach her how to sin is at once to make her a sinner, and the greater her knowledge, the wider her liberty, the deeper will be her depravity,—whereas, in the nobler sex, there is a natural tendency to goodness, guarded by a superior fortitude, which, the more it is exercised by trials and dangers, is only the further developed—’

‘Heaven forbid that I should think so!’ I interrupted her at last.

‘Well, then, it must be that you think they are both weak and prone to err, and the slightest error, the merest shadow of pollution, will ruin the one, while the character of the other will be strengthened and embellished—his education properly finished by a little practical acquaintance with forbidden things.  Such experience, to him (to use a trite simile), will be like the storm to the oak, which, though it may scatter the leaves, and snap the smaller branches, serves but to rivet the roots, and to harden and condense the fibres of the tree.  You would have us encourage our sons to prove all things by their own experience, while our daughters must not even profit by the experience of others.  Now I would have both so to benefit by the experience of others, and the precepts of a higher authority, that they should know beforehand to refuse the evil and choose the good, and require no experimental proofs to teach them the evil of transgression.  I would not send a poor girl into the world, unarmed against her foes, and ignorant of the snares that beset her path; nor would I watch and guard her, till, deprived of self-respect and self-reliance, she lost the power or the will to watch and guard herself;—and as for my son—if I thought he would grow up to be what you call a man of the world—one that has “seen life,” and glories in his experience, even though he should so far profit by it as to sober down, at length, into a useful and respected member of society—I would rather that he died to-morrow!—rather a thousand times!’ she earnestly repeated, pressing her darling to her side and kissing his forehead with intense affection.  He had already left his new companion, and been standing for some time beside his mother’s knee, looking up into her face, and listening in silent wonder to her incomprehensible discourse.

‘Well! you ladies must always have the last word, I suppose,’ said I, observing her rise, and begin to take leave of my mother.

‘You may have as many words as you please,—only I can’t stay to hear them.’

‘No; that is the way: you hear just as much of an argument as you please; and the rest may be spoken to the wind.’

‘If you are anxious to say anything more on the subject,’ replied she, as she shook hands with Rose, ‘you must bring your sister to see me some fine day, and I’ll listen, as patiently as you could wish, to whatever you please to say.  I would rather be lectured by you than the vicar, because I should have less remorse in telling you, at the end of the discourse, that I preserve my own opinion precisely the same as at the beginning—as would be the case, I am persuaded, with regard to either logician.’

‘Yes, of course,’ replied I, determined to be as provoking as herself; ‘for when a lady does consent to listen to an argument against her own opinions, she is always predetermined to withstand it—to listen only with her bodily ears, keeping the mental organs resolutely closed against the strongest reasoning.’

‘Good-morning, Mr. Markham,’ said my fair antagonist, with a pitying smile; and deigning no further rejoinder, she slightly bowed, and was about to withdraw; but her son, with childish impertinence, arrested her by exclaiming,—‘Mamma, you have not shaken hands with Mr. Markham!’

She laughingly turned round and held out her hand.  I gave it a spiteful squeeze, for I was annoyed at the continual injustice she had done me from the very dawn of our acquaintance.  Without knowing anything about my real disposition and principles, she was evidently prejudiced against me, and seemed bent upon showing me that her opinions respecting me, on every particular, fell far below those I entertained of myself.  I was naturally touchy, or it would not have vexed me so much. Perhaps, too, I was a little bit spoiled by my mother and sister, and some other ladies of my acquaintance;—and yet I was by no means a fop—of that I am fully convinced, whether you are or not..." 

Anne Bronte 

_______________________________________________

PS: Currently on chapter 27, about half the book. I will discuss the novel as well as its author when I have finished the whole thing. 

Mr Antolini's advice

"...I think that 1 of these days, you're going to have to find out where you want to go. And then you've got to start going there. But immediately. You can't afford to lose a minute. Not you. 
And I hate to tell you, but I think that once you have a fair idea where you want to go, your first move will be to apply yourself in school. You'll have to. You're a student- whether the idea appeals to you or not. You're in love with knowledge. And I think you'll find, once you get past all the Mr Vinsons, you're going to start getting closer and closer- that is, if you want to, and if you look for it and wait for it- to the kind of information that will be very, very dear to your heart. Among other things, you'll find that you're not the 1st person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behaviour. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them- if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry. 
I'm not trying to tell you that only educated and scholarly men are able to contribute something valuable to the world. It's not so. But I do say that educated and scholarly men, if they're brilliant and creative to begin with- which, unfortunately, is rarely the case- tend to leave infinitely more valuable records behind them than men do who are merely brilliant and creative. They tend to express themselves more clearly, and they usually have a passion for following their thoughts through to the end. And- most important- 9 times out of 9 they have more humility than the unscholarly thinker. 
Something else an academic education will do for you. If you go along with it any considerable distance, it'll begin to give you an idea what size mind you have. What it'll fit and, maybe, what it won't. After a while, you'll have an idea what kind of thoughts your particular size mind should be wearing. For 1 thing, it may save you an extraordinary amount of time trying on ideas that don't suit you, aren't becoming to you. You'll begin to know your true measurements and dress your mind accordingly." 
Taken from the conversation between Mr Antolini and Holden Caulfield in "The catcher in the rye". Holden's replies and descriptions of their actions are, of course, removed. 

I will not go into details, but if you want to know the truth, the reason I put this up on my blog is that (if you notice I don't really have to say it) for a long while now I've been in Holden Caulfield mood. I can predict what adjectives my former classmates in particular or my peers in general might use to describe me, just as they've said about Holden Caulfield, and in my case it might even be less acceptable because I'm already 19 and a university student. Still lost and confused, you see. 
I hope this passage also means something for you, wakes up something in you. I hope it does. 

The weirdest, most fascinating, most impressive, most fun and most memorable 14/2 ever

We cut open a heart. 

(In my group I actually was the one who dissected it) 

This photo includes the 2 lungs.

That's the heart, after I cut off the fat covering it.

This is a photo of Shagha, holding the heart of her group. If you can't see, I'm in the background, cutting up another one. 

The inside of the heart. Well, I did put my finger in there. It's awesome. 

It was terrific. You can imagine. It was TERRIFIC. 
(photos taken by May Helen)




PS: In case you didn't see, a while ago in our class we dissected a cow eye.